Bowser's Latest on School Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Settle down everybody. I didn't vote for Bowser. But she's not stupid, and she's not ill-prepared.

You can disagree with her about her position (or lack of position) on the boundary changes without disparaging her competence.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is it possible for anyone to be surprised? Well, I mean, if you've been paying even a shred of attention to what this woman has been saying for a while. She says she wants "change" but I'm hoping she decides to "tweak" very little within the overall administration. This city could go off the wheels pretty quick if she brings back Marion Barry-era cronies.

Her transition team includes some pretty serious types, including Alice Rivlin. And I am sure the Mayor For Life will be delighted to see Tommy Wells leading the Transportation subcomm of the transition team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Settle down everybody. I didn't vote for Bowser. But she's not stupid, and she's not ill-prepared.

You can disagree with her about her position (or lack of position) on the boundary changes without disparaging her competence.

Stupid is as stupid does.

I have to agree with the first poster. I understand that this is an anonymous board and folks are frustrated (I am too as a Catania voter), but this sort of name calling isn't very productive.

[Anonymous]

Thanks pp. I am appropriately chastised and will try to repair my terrible temper in the future. So glad you are here to keep us all "productive"

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, let me guess, those who fill out applications in December will have to redo them once she tweaks the boundaries?

If she wants to change the boundaries, she is required by law to give notice a year in advance. The mayor's plan has not yet changed boundaries (that takes effect at the end of August). So, Bowser could announce in January that the current boundaries (pre-DME recomendations) would remain in effect. That would really only be a problem for those trying to get into pre-k because otherwise you don't have to lottery for your inbounds school. Charters don't have boundaries, so it wouldn't impact them either. I'm sure that there are some other cases in which someone's plans would be upset, but I think a delay would be more of a publicity problem than anything. Then, she would have until the end of August to announce her new boundaries.

But, the PR problem is of such magnitude that I find it hard to believe she will actually do it. She might be able to tweak grandfathering. The Crestwood/16th Street Heights situation is easy because Unicorn won't be open for a while. She can easily allow for a longer grandfathering period and kick that down the road a ways. Allowing EotR kids to keep going to Eastern might be more difficult, but there might still be room for them at Eastern if she simply grandfathers them as well. That leaves the students in SW who are getting booted from Wilson to Eastern in the lurch. It's not clear to me that anyone cares about them (and maybe not even them). But grandfathering could kick that problem down the road as well. But, maybe she does want to take the heat for stopping the new boundaries. We'll see.

I'm not sure about this.
1. Could the one-year notice requirement be construed so that leaving boundaries as they are after announcing a change would also be considered a change? In other words, would a court allow Bowser to decide on Feb. 1 2015 that all the boundaries for 2015-6 will be the same as they were in 2014-15, or would they say that decision was a change requiring one year's notice? I could imagine a judge issuing a restraining order and litigants dragging things out past the 3/2/15 deadline for the PK-8 lottery. Then it would be a real mess to change things after that.

2. If they did allow Bowser to do that, it's a big problem for Van Ness for 2015-16 since it wouldn't have a boundary. The kids would be in their current (Amidon-Bowen) boundary. And THAT is a big problem because Amidon (as well as Van Ness) are schools where there is a right to PK for IB families who list it in their lottery choices. Amidon could be overfull of PK in that scenario, and families that prefer Van Ness would be pissed. They could open it as a boundaryless school (with proximity preference?) but that would be politically very unpleasant.

3. There are families that like the boundary changes. For example, those in the expanded Cleveland feeder zone. They might have decided not to enter the lottery because their K-5 kid could go to Cleveland, and then all of a sudden would have to get up to speed on where to apply if they didn't like the school they ended up having the right to attend. It would really suck.

I

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, let me guess, those who fill out applications in December will have to redo them once she tweaks the boundaries?

If she wants to change the boundaries, she is required by law to give notice a year in advance. The mayor's plan has not yet changed boundaries (that takes effect at the end of August). So, Bowser could announce in January that the current boundaries (pre-DME recomendations) would remain in effect. That would really only be a problem for those trying to get into pre-k because otherwise you don't have to lottery for your inbounds school. Charters don't have boundaries, so it wouldn't impact them either. I'm sure that there are some other cases in which someone's plans would be upset, but I think a delay would be more of a publicity problem than anything. Then, she would have until the end of August to announce her new boundaries.

But, the PR problem is of such magnitude that I find it hard to believe she will actually do it. She might be able to tweak grandfathering. The Crestwood/16th Street Heights situation is easy because Unicorn won't be open for a while. She can easily allow for a longer grandfathering period and kick that down the road a ways. Allowing EotR kids to keep going to Eastern might be more difficult, but there might still be room for them at Eastern if she simply grandfathers them as well. That leaves the students in SW who are getting booted from Wilson to Eastern in the lurch. It's not clear to me that anyone cares about them (and maybe not even them). But grandfathering could kick that problem down the road as well. But, maybe she does want to take the heat for stopping the new boundaries. We'll see.

I'm not sure about this.
1. Could the one-year notice requirement be construed so that leaving boundaries as they are after announcing a change would also be considered a change? In other words, would a court allow Bowser to decide on Feb. 1 2015 that all the boundaries for 2015-6 will be the same as they were in 2014-15, or would they say that decision was a change requiring one year's notice? I could imagine a judge issuing a restraining order and litigants dragging things out past the 3/2/15 deadline for the PK-8 lottery. Then it would be a real mess to change things after that.

2. If they did allow Bowser to do that, it's a big problem for Van Ness for 2015-16 since it wouldn't have a boundary. The kids would be in their current (Amidon-Bowen) boundary. And THAT is a big problem because Amidon (as well as Van Ness) are schools where there is a right to PK for IB families who list it in their lottery choices. Amidon could be overfull of PK in that scenario, and families that prefer Van Ness would be pissed. They could open it as a boundaryless school (with proximity preference?) but that would be politically very unpleasant.

3. There are families that like the boundary changes. For example, those in the expanded Cleveland feeder zone. They might have decided not to enter the lottery because their K-5 kid could go to Cleveland, and then all of a sudden would have to get up to speed on where to apply if they didn't like the school they ended up having the right to attend. It would really suck.

The way I would interpret the "one year notification of a change rule" is this:

1) Notification is provided
2) One year goes by
3) Change takes place

Therefore, we are currently at step 2. I don't see why Bowser couldn't simply say, "About step 3? Never mind." She would basically rescind the notification. Changes require notification, but not making changes doesn't.

Your other two points are very valid and the sort of thing that Bowser probably hasn't thought through. It is those sorts of issues, plus the PR nightmare that will probably cause her to drop any plans she might have to change boundaries. That's why I think the "tweaks" are more likely to be related to grandfathering.

[Anonymous]

Recsinding the notification to save some parents from a change (that many are grandfathered for) harms some families where the change was an improvement to them, right?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Recsinding the notification to save some parents from a change (that many are grandfathered for) harms some families where the change was an improvement to them, right?

Probably, but that is not a legal matter.

Whether or not changes or tweaks or an undoing or a total halt or anything else should happen in regard to the boundary changes is a separate question from whether they can happen. Moreover, both of those are separate from will happen. I think the boundary change notification can be rescinded. Without additional knowledge of why it might be rescinded, I have no opinion on whether it should be rescinded. Based on what I do know, I don't think it will be rescinded.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone point me to the statutory language which codifies the one year notice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone point me to the statutory language which codifies the one year notice?

Title 38 of the DC Code, Chapter 2, subchapter 1A (http://dccode.org/simple/Title-38/Chapter-2/Subchapter-I-A/)

"Except as required due to a school closure or a consolidation of schools, upon Dec. 24, 2013, notwithstanding any other law or regulation, no approved establishment, modification, or alteration of any attendance zone boundary shall be implemented, or in any manner initiated, until the 2015-2016 school year or with less notice than a full school year to the parent or guardian of each affected student, whichever is greater; provided, that nothing in this section shall prohibit the Chancellor from proposing or implementing changes to school feeder patterns that would result in additional options in next-level schools for a feeder school."

[Anonymous]

My recollection is that DCPS didn't send letters home in backpacks until after the start of this school year and that Gray didn't approve the recommendations until just before the school year started. Either way, this surely doesn't constitute actual notice to the parent or guardian of each affected student which meets the one year requirement. I also assume that the DCMR would need to be amended to implement certain aspects of the approved recommendations, which itself requires notice and comment unless done on an "emergency" basis which is all-too-common in DC.

[Anonymous]

The "additional options" language cited above is also interesting. The DME and Mayor hasn't merely instituted "additional options" for schools now feeding to next-level Deal. The same is true for the Jefferson via-a-vis its feed to Wilson, and Brent and Tyler vis-a-vis their feeder rights to Eliot-Hine. Problematic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "additional options" language cited above is also interesting. The DME and Mayor hasn't merely instituted "additional options" for schools now feeding to next-level Deal. The same is true for the Jefferson via-a-vis its feed to Wilson, and Brent and Tyler vis-a-vis their feeder rights to Eliot-Hine. Problematic?

Jefferson doesn't have a feed to Wilson. It's just that some the area that is in-bounds for Jefferson (which feeds Eastern) is also in-bounds for Wilson. So current Jefferson students who live in SW, for example, could either go to Eastern (as their feeder school) or Wilson (as their in-bounds school). DME's plan changed Wilson's boundary so the only option will be Eastern.

I think the "additional options" language was meant to allow schools to have multiple feeders (like if they wanted Tyler to feed to Jefferson OR Adams) without a year's notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it possible for anyone to be surprised? Well, I mean, if you've been paying even a shred of attention to what this woman has been saying for a while. She says she wants "change" but I'm hoping she decides to "tweak" very little within the overall administration. This city could go off the wheels pretty quick if she brings back Marion Barry-era cronies.

Her transition team includes some pretty serious types, including Alice Rivlin. And I am sure the Mayor For Life will be delighted to see Tommy Wells leading the Transportation subcomm of the transition team.

Oh, and Bowser's brother is on the transition team, too. Cha-ching!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it possible for anyone to be surprised? Well, I mean, if you've been paying even a shred of attention to what this woman has been saying for a while. She says she wants "change" but I'm hoping she decides to "tweak" very little within the overall administration. This city could go off the wheels pretty quick if she brings back Marion Barry-era cronies.

Her transition team includes some pretty serious types, including Alice Rivlin. And I am sure the Mayor For Life will be delighted to see Tommy Wells leading the Transportation subcomm of the transition team.

Oh, and Bowser's brother is on the transition team, too. Cha-ching!

Same ole, same ole. Like Fenty and all his frat brothers getting contracts.